Dokument je izvleček s spletišča EUR-Lex.
Dokument 62019TN0002
Case T-2/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
Case T-2/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
Case T-2/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
OJ C 82, 4.3.2019, str. 60–61
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.3.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/60 |
Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
(Case T-2/19)
(2019/C 82/72)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, lawyer, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, and D. Mackersie, Barristers)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the SRB’s decision to the effect that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014; (1) |
|
— |
order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the SRB’s decision that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 rests on an error of law in breach of Article 20(11) and/or Article 20(12) of that Regulation, which requires an ex-post definitive valuation in circumstances where a provisional valuation that did not meet the requirements of Article 20(1) and (4) to (9) of Regulation 806/2014 is relied on to take resolution measures. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed manifest errors of assessment in its application of Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 in the contested decision, because, in adopting the contested decision, the SRB proceeded on the erroneous basis that no ex-post definitive valuations are required in this case. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that, insofar as the contested decision implies a decision by the SRB not to increase the value of the EUR 1 consideration paid by Banco Santander, S.A., this amounts to an error of law and/or manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 20(11) and (12) of Regulation 806/2014. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached its obligation to provide reasons for the contested decision, contrary to Article 296 TFEU. |
(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).